>Maybe Trump's supporters wanted a dictator, but they shouldn't be surprised that people who love America and spend their lives serving it won't simply roll over and let that happen.
Treason is the alternative?
Treason is the alternative?
Treason against tyranny looks like it turns out for the better; but treason against democracy seems pretty sick to me.
One could also remember that many famous tyrants came to power through a fair democratic process. Erdogan is one such example, Putin is another. And, of course, there was that whole thing in Weimar Germany. Which just goes to show that democracy can sometimes be oppressive, and fighting that oppression amounts to "treason against democracy".
It isn't a democracy, it's a republic.
If the rules were different things would be different. But "different" doesn't necessarily mean the Democrats would have the presidency, it might only mean the Republicans would have spent more time campaigning in Texas and New York because picking up more votes in those states would then have actually mattered.
You'll have to take that up with OP - he's the one asserting that it's "treason against democracy".
Also it's only in the impoverished political climate of USA that one would ever worry about a "majority" for ruler. Most nations have more than 1.5 political parties, so they have lots of elections in which no one gets a majority. Sure some of them have runoffs, but with or without those it's possible for a set of electoral rules to handle the less-than-absolute-majority case perfectly well.
why does this bother you, but corporate campaign contributions dont ? I voted for Trump because he doesn't need the money, so he can't be bought and paid for. The fact that corporations can influence elections with money is a much greater problem than the electoral system.
Most rich people don't need the money, their own motivations drive them toward greater riches. I can hardly imagine someone claiming good moral character and ethics of someone with his questionable at best business and personal history.
You honestly believe big money didn't help him get elected? I supposed he just ended up with a cabinet of mega donors and billionaires?
By all accounts, he's already cashing in on his role as a president big time. The payments to his properties from the government in order to arrange for his security as he travels around already number in the millions. And that's one of the most minor financial conflicts of interest that he is involved in.
And where did I say that it bothers me? I merely pointed out that it's not a democracy if the vote of the majority is disregarded.
> Treason is the alternative?
Correct. It is the rational and moral choice. Just as you must defy the orders of your superior officer if ordered to commit war crimes prohibited by the Geneva Convention, so must you defy the President to preserve the aims of liberty and equality expressed in the US Constitution.
And you're correct that we don't know the motives of those people. Just as OP doesn't know that they aren't noble, you also don't know that they aren't.
* Within the first week of his Presidency, a de facto Chinese government press organ threatened military action against the USA.
* Legal US residents were detained and turned back at US borders, as a result of an executive order of questionable constitutionality.
* Trump has challenged the legitimacy of US courts and judges, and threatened to remove them from power.
* Trump has declared all the country's major news agencies as enemies of the people. Maybe you have trouble understanding just how serious an accusation that is.
* Having been threatened with a 20% import tax and after the scrapping of the TPP, Mexico as one of the US' major trade partners is scrambling to improve its trade relations with China and other countries that are not the US.
* Trump has fired one of his advisors over allegations of treason he called fake. Whatever the truth is, Trump put himself in the wrong in this matter.
That's an astonishing set of mis-achievements for just a month in office.
Bluffers gonna bluff. What're they gonna do, invade Taiwan over a phone call? Maybe start a nuclear war? Trump's complete non-reaction to these goofy empty threats was one of the few unambiguously correct foreign policy moves he's made so far. Call back when you have a real navy.
Legal US residents were detained and turned back at US borders, as a result of an executive order of questionable constitutionality.
Presidents have been trampling on our rights for decades at least. Obama was particularly fond of extrajudicial assassination by drone, and it appears Trump completely agrees, but I haven't seen any protests about that. Happily, this overreach was overruled in a matter of days.
Trump has challenged the legitimacy of US courts and judges, and threatened to remove them from power.
Like FDR did, right? Except he actually did more than, you know, threaten...
Trump has declared all the country's major news agencies as enemies of the people. Maybe you have trouble understanding just how serious an accusation that is.
Is that a direct quote? I do have that trouble, along with anyone else who has observed these "major news agencies" for more than a minute. They only care about eyeballs, and they will say anything to attract those eyeballs. Criticizing them is not an attack on the First Amendment, but rather an exercise of it.
Having been threatened with a 20% import tax and after the scrapping of the TPP, Mexico as one of the US' major trade partners is scrambling to improve its trade relations with China and other countries that are not the US.
Elections have consequences, but those consequences have yet to occur. Threats and scrambles have no short-term effects. In the long term, they might cause some supply chain modifications, but we ain't there yet.
Trump has fired one of his advisors over allegations of treason he called fake. Whatever the truth is, Trump put himself in the wrong in this matter.
Hiring-and-immediately-firing could be a definition of "nothing happening".
So, in the same spirit in which your suggestions were given, I would suggest that you stop playing psychologist on the Internet. You're clearly not good at it.
When people are sworn into office, their oath is to the Constitution, not to the President.
It is treason to, as president, violate your oath of office to follow and protect the Constitution.
He seems to have colluded with a foreign state to undermine the integrity of our elections and political process. He likely made financial arrangements as part of that process.
He has attacked the independence and authority of the judicial branch, which enforces constitutional restraint on our president.
He has attacked the media, which (while not a government agency) forms a basis for democratic society.
Together, these are a systemic assault on the American system, which while not ideal, is not better served by a despot.
It should be clear something is amiss when renowned senators like John McCain are pointing out Trump is acting the way despots do.
But by the same strict reading of the Constitution, it is also not treason for intelligence officers to leak information to the press. Treason is narrowly defined within the Constitution as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
If seeking to discredit the media or control its access to information is just all in the game, then seeking to deliver that information to media is also just all in the game.
I think much of the article's point was that there are established norms & institutions by which the President usually interacts with the rest of the government. If the President ignores them, then it's highly likely that other power centers will also say "Well, if they're going to come after me with all the resources available to them, I'm going to go after them with all the resources available to me." And the end result of that is often multiple competing power centers in open warfare with each other, much like what happened in Syria. That would be bad for everyone in America (and a good many people outside of it), and so we should be wary of all parties that seek to ignore the norms of peaceful democratic society.
I'd kind of like to keep the legal meaning of "unconstitutional"(an action that would be ruled against by the Supreme Court), because the alternative is for me to say things like, "It's okay for the President to do an unconstitutional act", which the fuzzier meaning allows.
That reason is pretty simple: populist dictators need to be stopped early, if we're to minimize the harm. (That is, if we're going to resolve the issue politically, rather than through other means.)
Many dictators (and early in history, emporers) who take over from democratic societies do so "legally". They enact measures to remove the various aspects of government they dislike or which check their power after destroying the judiciary and seizing control of the media.
Defending the American system against a dictator -- and America becoming a dictatorship could happen -- requires winning the hearts and minds of the public, and getting them to engage with the system to show their support.
Without the public -- who make up the military, civil servants, etc -- judges are people in silly robes, the Congress is a bunch of old people in a building, the president is just some guy, and the Constitution is just a piece of paper.
Trump's actions are those of a nascent dictator, the people arguing with me are rules lawyering rather than talking about the substantive issues, and neither should be surprised that people stand up to their nonsense.
I know which side of history I want to be on -- the side with people like John McCain speaking out how this, what's happening now, isn't okay, and not the side who has to quibble about technicalities rather than the substance of the issue.
See eg. George Lakoff's comments on framing [1]. If you set yourself up as "opposing Trump", you actually reinforce Trump as the leader of America. You need to propose an alternative frame about what America should look like instead, one that is more compelling than "Make America Great Again", and then let people judge for themselves that the facts of Trump's policy do not fit in with a great America.
This thread is a little different than the general case though, because we're specifically talking about the appropriateness of various agencies talking about brewing scandals and/or internally resisting orders.
For that case, it's perfectly appropriate to point out that the person we're discussing is a nascent dictator and likely Russian collaborator, because it explains why I'm more aggressive on the issue than, say, with Bush.
I appreciate the link, will be doing some reading this afternoon. :)
The original argument was whether the deep state was defending the Constitution, which relies on a) whether Trump did anything unconstitutional, and b) whether the deep state is specifically opposed to Trump on those issues, as opposed to pushing their own (war?) agenda under that cover.
The deep state is not protecting the constitution, but seems to be trying to a) weaken Trump by any means possible and b) push for aggression in Ukraine and escalation against Russia. You'll notice that Trump's position on Crimea and Russia shifted just a few days ago, after the whole deep state debacle.
The rest of your comment is covered under game theory. Trump being friendly to the deep state would have been stupid of him, for reasons that are obvious now.
It's not treasonous, but in most cases it is illegal. They are committing crimes and they should be punished for doing so.
Demand an independent investigation first.